Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

We were going to run European Patent Examiner John Savage's answers to 10 Slashdot questions today, but he emailed us this morning and asked us to pull them back because he was was in trouble over the interview. What he had to say was informative, non-controversial, and would not have hurt his employer's reputation at all, but we don't want John to lose his job or face disciplinary action on our account. Anyway, get ready for a slightly unusual Slashdot interview guest next week: Celeb chef and self-described "culinary cartographer" Alton Brown.

The examiner's manager has done more damage to the EU patent office's reputation than any answer the examiner could have given.

Nonsense. Some folks who read/. now realise there is at least one manager in the EU patent office that believes in following standard policy in just about any large organisation.

If you really think you couldn't do any worse, then you have obviously never been on the receiving end of really bad PR. Employee told not to talk to the press without approval is just not news. No story here, move along.

Yeah, cause we know news only happens when its released in the form of a 'press release' after having been through the squeaky-clean rollers of 3 proof readers, 2 spokespeople, a lawyer and a manager that makes sure the contents dont illustrate why the brochure is 40% BS.

Nice to know that informing and educating people about a legal process can put you in danger of losing your job.

Danger? More like: this poor guy is doomed. His boss surely has him now branded as the guy who is friends to those hippie anarchists. Either they'll fire him in a few weeks on a made-up excuse or he'll be given such sucky assignments he'll want to quit (aka "The Freezer").

On the other hand, if they fire him, he'll be able to speak out. Don't throw away that interview just yet.

Not necissarily. Most companies actually require that employees not say anything publically that could be construed as being "from the company", even though they're just from an employee. Basically only marketting shmoes "trained in the process" can speak to the public.

Most all statements "from the company" are passed through PR people and lawyers to make sure the company doesn't get in trouble for liabelous comments made by an employee.

That's what more likely happened, just more sue-fearing rather than business manipulation.

I am absolutely certain that this man has signed some sort of NDA. Probably one that is much more severe than what we sign on a regular basis. Remember, this man is being trusted with public office without election and audit. He is being trusted by inventors not to reveal their patents to corporations that might line his pocket on the side to read pending patents. I'm not wording this very well, I know, but basically, I am certain that he has signed some elevated form of an NDA and should he have spoken out of line about internal processes, he most likely would have violated it. That may have also carried with it the terms of violated public trust as well, which is a felony, I think.

I'd say that his manager needs to read items 1 through 95 of the Clue Train Manifesto [cluetrain.com]. He seems to be under the mistaken assumption that preventing conversations maintains the secrecy of the Guy Behind the Curtain, when in fact all it does is point out that he has no clothes on.

People do it all the time, it just takes a simple disclaimer, the opinions expressed are that of the author and not that of his employer. Unless I miss my guess I've seen THAT wording used HERE before. It is too bad but speaking of bad publicity, this in my mind makes them as guilty as any defendent claiming the 5th amendment. If you can't speak for fear of incriminating yourself does that NOT imply you are guilty ???Granted the liable laws in Europe are much stiffer so there may be circumstances I am not aware of....

You have to wonder what PR brainiac came up with the idea of censoring an interview like this. Anything this guy had to say couldn't possibly look as bad as this does, unless it's on the lines of "we kill puppies and cute little kittens to make mittens".

> You have to wonder what PR brainiac came up with the idea of censoring an interview like this.
Anything this guy had to say couldn't possibly look as bad as this does, unless it's on the lines of "we
kill puppies and cute little kittens to make mittens".

Maybe they just approved a "Method for decreasing thermal losses in human extremities through repurposing of epidermal infant canine and feline tissues"?;-)

Oooh, bitchy. I think it's only natural and sensible to ask what they're up to, and to ask harder the harder they try not to tell you. I'm not suggesting a crusade against them, but their work has a direct effect on many of us here, so it is in the public interest for them to be open about their processes.

This guy doesn't do PR (and isn't allowed to if he tries) for a reason.

Which is unfortunate, because what most probably wanted was insights into the way they work, which you almost certainly would not get from a PR rep. As you say, PR staff don't approve patents, so what's the point in asking them how or why patents are approved? We are a technically minded audience and want technically rich answers which they would be less likely to be able to provide.

I was very interested A) to see what questions would be allowed to be asked, and B)to hear what he had to say. I guess their methods for patent approval are patented and, therefore, cannot be discussed in an open forum. Probably afraid the US Gov't would sue or bomb over pointed answers about the US system.

I was very interested A) to see what questions would be allowed to be asked, and B)to hear what he had to say. I guess their methods for patent approval are patented and, therefore, cannot be discussed in an open forum.

If you have ever dealt with the ISO, the ITU, or the EU regulatory bodies, you know that description isn't too far from the truth. North American regulatory bodies may well be captured by the regulated parties, but at least you as a citizen have some right-to-know and to participate. Europe perfers that these processes occur in a controlled environment.

I'd rather see some e-mail addresses of people we could write there. The Slashdot Effect on someone's inbox is likely a great way of making someone see that allowing a little interview isn't nearly as problematic as dealing with thousands of angry nerds.

"...allowing a little interview isn't nearly as problematic as dealing with thousands of angry nerds."For some reason, that cracked me up:)
We are nerds. We are legion.
And the Geek shall inherit the earth.

A lot of big organizations, such as corporations, government agencies, etc, and those smaller agencies descended from them, tend to want tight control over the information going out.

Not knowing anything about this situation in particular, but from my experience I'd say the trouble came about because the answers weren't gone over by their Public Affairs and Legal weenies before he sent them out.

If they HAD been white-washed by Legal and PA, then something in the answers must have worried someone. Don't forget that anything that comes from someone associated with an organization is assumed "expert opinion" and "official policy" even if the first two statements in the matter directly refute those assumptions.

Alternatively, someone's boss may have an excessively high cover-my-arse quotient and decided to play it by the safest method: Don't tell 'em nothin', and they won't have anythin' on yeh. We don't have a grand conspiracy here, just ordinary every day middle-management pucker factor.

...most gov't agencies don't like it when someone who's not a Trained Professional Media Handler talks to the media while mentioning their standing as a gov't employee, Just In Case they say something that three years down the road is proved false or, worse yet, embarrassing. A better way to do it would be to have employees watch their tongues, but blanket policies are the way gov't orgs work, alas...

A better way to do it would be for employers to simply disclaim false statements from a low level employee as just that, false statements from a low level employee. But because we impose no cost on them for being extremist censors and gag-artists, they push the boundaries as far as possible.

Don't be coddling these management practices. While you are right that some of them wouldn't have been invented if employees used a bit of common sense occasionally in terms of speculating about what they didn't know, spreading rumours, etc, that doesn't mean these practices are detrimental to society and weaken the organization itself in the long run.

If the management of the European Patent Office is trully acting in good faith, then we should shortly see the interview released after having been looked over by a few people; and we should expect the bureaucrat who made this decision to be willing to answer his own set of questions.

The problem with that, is that ACs have no credibility. They are good for introducing ideas and pointing things out that must then be fact-checked but they can't be authorities on the facts themselves.

AC can say, "I work at the patent office, and we shred puppies here every day," but I won't believe it. But then maybe I'll check to see if there are lots of reports of puppies missing from the area around their office.

Looking at the questions asked for the interview, I don't think an AC approach would help much.

He probably hasn't been on Iron Chef because the show hasn't been filmed for years; it's just that it's slowly making its way over here. Most anime takes 2 years to get here, and the dubbing on Iron Chef is (generally) higher quality (not that I think need it at all, but...)

He has said in an interview that he doesn't consider himself a chef, and holds master chefs in high regard as artists, but is annoyed that they publish cookbooks, because "ordinary" people will never be able to duplicate their efforts. He likens it to Picasso publishing a "Paint like Picasso" book. Check out www.goodeatsfanpage.com for that interview, as well as transcripts to every show, and all sorts of good stuff.

What I'd really like to ask Alton is how much control he has over the recipes that appear on foodtv.com. His herb spread recipe from "Good Milk Gone Bad" seems to have been altered quite a bit, and in fact, the spices he used are listed as an alternative! Also, two of the recipes from "Deep Purple" (eggplant) seem to have suffered similar fates. In the episode, he made a big deal about combining all the other ingredients for baba ghannouj first, and then adding the parsley last, because, "You don't want to pulverise that parsely" (or it will turn bitter). But the foodtv recipe listing just tosses it all in at once. It also shortenes the draining time (for removing bitter alkaloids) from 30 minutes to 10 minutes. And though it's nice that they doubled the Eggplant Pasta recipe to serve more people, they seem to have quadrupled the olive oil, tomatoes, and basil; and again, the prep time is reduced (purging time given in the show was 15 minutes + 1-3 hours; here, it's 30 minutes). As picky as AB is about methods, I find this very strange.

> What I'd really like to ask Alton is how much
> control he has over the recipes that appear on
> foodtv.com.
Actually, I think the recipes come from him. I think he submits them long before he actually starts taping the episode. Then as they are taping and other people read the script, crew who try the recipes, his own chefs start work on it, they change things. So, the episode recipe can (and has been) different than what's on foodtv.com.
That's why I began (but haven't always) created a recipe from the show. You can find links to those pages in the Episode Index section for each season.
Mikemenn
http://www.GoodEatsFanPage.com

I'm also working at the EPO, as an external contractor. It is interesting to see that he has been forced to pull his interview, but there may be some good reasons for this. And probably none of them has anything to do with the questions per se.Imagine you working for a huuuuge company, say IBM, Microsoft, WorldCom;) or any other company getting lots of media coverage. Imagine you, as 'just another worker' would start answering questions from the press and so on. No matter how much you would state that you do not represent them or their opinion etc. etc., try thinking how easy it is for a newspaper, website, radio station, etc. to simply edit those statements away.. Not only would you risk ending up having your statements treated as if they were 'authoritative', you would, with good reason, piss your boss off.One thing is to talk to your friends about the good and bad things happening at your job. An entirely different thing is to publically make statements about it when you really have NO authority to do so. If you are working for someone, you need to be able to trust your employer, AND your employer needs to be able to trust you.I could have said a lot of interesting things about how the EPO works, both positive and negative, but I won't do so in a public forum simply because it is not my job!If you want answers from the EPO, or any other company or organization, there are usually public relations departments or the like. They are not always too helpful, but that should always be the place to start. And I wouldn't be all too surprised if they would indeed agree to do an interview with the slashdot crowd. After all the EPO takes pride in saying it's an organization of scientists, fundamentally differently organized than the american patent office, and atleast some people in high places do identify with our kind.

The next logical question then is why doesn't slashdot submit the questions using the proper channels?

This has the two-fold benefit of having "our" questions answered and making them look good. That way I can glide past all the "look at how secretive and curropt the EPO is!" posts...

Its a litigious(sp?) world we live in, and it would be horrible for a blatantly bad patent application (you know, the kind that get approved in the US everyday?) to take the EPO to court based upon some answer that a guy (who just so happens to be employed by the EPO, therefor acts as their agent) gave, forcing the patent to be granted, and set the precedent for bad patents!

This was someone who came forward voluntarily and offered to do the interview. Over 3/4 of our interviews come about this way or as a result of reader suggestions (as long as those suggestions are accompanied by contact info).

An employee should know what s/he can say in an interview. That decision making should be left up to the employee. If s/he says something inappropriate, fire them. I cannot believe how employees are treated these days - like retarded wrenches, capable of only turning clockwise or counterclockwise, incapable of being trusted with execising proper judgement.

I understand exactly what you're saying, but I feel it's the responsibility and job of the press to interview the appropriate people for the piece they're trying to put together.

If a member of the news media approached me and started asking me for some information about my job, I'd assume they had some sort of valid reason to choose me for the interview, as opposed to upper-level management.

I'd also expect (and even demand) that in the interest of good journalism, they'd properly state my position within the company I worked for. (EG. If they quote me, they don't have to necessarily use my name - but they should at least explain that "One of the employees was quoted as saying....", instead of making it look like I was a mouthpiece for the C.E.O.)

Nobody being interviewed really has the ability to know, in advance, how their interview will be used. All you get is a really rough outline of the type of piece being published or aired. Therefore, you always place a certain level of trust in the reporter or interviewer to use your comments properly/accurately.

If this trust breaks down, people quit volunteering to be interviewed.

You're making far too many assumptions based on views that the media is ethical and moral, versus trying to report in such a way that it increases their revenues.

What the parent post said was right... most companies and organizations that are large enough to have a legal dept. would require that anything and everything said by any employee to anyone else, with the possibility of it being publicly displayed, be reviewed by the lawyers.

Chances are, if Slashdot sent the media relations office an interview request, indicating they would like to interview this particular examiner, and then within the EPO, that examiner's responses were routed through legal, everything would be legit. Doing anything less than this is suicide for large organizations and corporations.

I understand the risks that some sources make pickup statements as an authority. My concern is: Why should the patent office, a PUBLIC institution that grants lucritive temporary monopolies on IDEAS, not be subjected to public scrutany???

What are the REAL risks? What's the worse that could happen if our friend was allowed to talk freely? Maybe people would lose confidence with current policy!!! Oh no!!!

The people who silenced this guy should be held liable. He has every right to talk about his experience and role in public policy, without fearing losing his job. This isn't a corporation, and it isn't the military. It's a PUBLIC institution.

Scrutiny DOES mean allowing any Joe Employee to say whatever he wants (minus libel) about the organization without having it going through channels who's sole purpose is to censor and omit corruption and incompetence.

Doing otherwise only makes it more difficult for the rest of us to detect corruption, incompetence in a public institution whose purpose is to promote the advancement of technology by providing an incentive, not act as the corrupt wing of government who lines the pockets of IP attorneys and other patent cartels.

I don't know about you, but I don't trust corrupt beaurcrats as much as I trust as WorldCom/Enron executive.

Yes, because I know the only people who can provide me with accurate insightful and potentially critical information on a public organization is the person who's job it is to do damage control.

Are you people serious? Have we come this far only to create employment in the form of deflecting or managing scrutiny? Doesn't that somewhat defeat the purpose of scrutiny if its your job to be graceful under it?

I'm also working at the EPO, as an external contractor (...) After all the EPO takes pride in saying it's an organization of scientists, fundamentally differently organized than the american patent office, and atleast some people in high places do identify with our kind.

Whoah there buddy... hope you didn't just get in hot water for saying that on a public forum..

While the USPO will happily grant patents for software algorithms, the EPO does not do this, and clearly states so in its material, and when questioned. (I've asked the EPO myself.) No, the EPO does not allow such blatant exploitation by twisted business. No... you have to be much more sneaky, describing your algorithm as a 'machine' that just happens to be implemented as software.As so often in Europe, we have the same dirt as everywhere else, but it's cloaked in bureaucratic verbage.It would have been fun to rip into an EPO spokesman, but it would have to be someone with the authority so actually answer questions such as "How many US firms have already registered software patents while the EPO is refusing these from little European software firms?"You can tell I've not much hope for the EPO. They may be scientists, but that does not stop them being fools.

No, the EPO does not allow such blatant exploitation by twisted business. No... you have to be much more sneaky, describing your algorithm as a 'machine' that just happens to be implemented as software.

I worked for a US patent law office (way back in the 80s) and this used to be the policy in the United States. I'd be interesting in knowing what precipitated the change. Unless memory fails me, it would have been inconceivable for the USPTO to grant a patent for pure software, let alone a business model.

Ironically, I'm actually listed as an inventor on a pure software patent (sh*t, I know -- company legal manuever). Does make a nice resume decoration, tho.

The EPO invoked the DCMA to prevent employee J. Savage from exposing the inner workings of the EPO's patent approval process, saying "we consider the EPO's approval process to be a trade secret protected through our jargonising encryption machine (pat.pend), and any public discussion of this process would violate upcoming EuroDCMA legislation."Independent sources from said that Sony was working on a new jargon-compliant DRM package - OpenPatentOffice/MG - that would control and monitor all use of patented inventions automatically.

I'd be suprised if he had been allowed to answer questions. It's just plain old SOP that release of information from government agencies must go through the agencies' procedures.
This means that the garbage man isn't able to tell me how he drives the truck and works the trash compactor without a policy statement from the mayor's office saying what to tell me.
Is there still a bank secrets law that keeps bankers from saying how much cash reserve they have to maintain, etc? Maybe there's secrecy laws for patent offices? And their probably secret too.

"Don't talk to the press without permission" or "divert all media inquiries to the communications office" are boilerplate phrases from most every employee manual.

It's a control issue, for fear that every statement released will appear to be official company policy (cf. those "my opinions alone" email sigs, or/. headlines "Microsoft says..." that should be "A single Microsoft peon says...", or the recent Saudi pentagon leak, etc. etc.).

If you think this level of control isn't necessary for communications reps to do their job, why don't you give everyone root access and see what happens.:)

Quick! Somebody file a patent through them that gives you credit for thinking up cancelling slashdot interviews! Then you can tell them that they have to pay you $10,000 to cancel the interview... that'll learn 'em. They'll probably approve the patent anyhow knowing what other patents have been filed in the past...

No more circular swinging, no more phone dialing music, no more wheel... durn...

I'll be doing an annual turkey fry with a couple buddies before summer's end and the question of brining has come up. What exactly does the brining process do to the bird? What part does the sugar vs. the salt vs. H2O play? I've observed that brined chicken breasts develop a nice brown color and are juicy but would like a more scientific perspective, especially with respect to brining + frying. One concern is that the sugar on the skin may carbonize under the high cooking temperature.

I plan on brining the turkey for a day, followed by a day of sitting outside the brine, but injected with a buttery mix of herbs and spices. I'm also a little concerned that the effects of brining may be lost if the bird is left outside the brine so long before cooking. A scientific perspective would help me in better approximating the ideal way to go about this. Thanks! I really enjoy and look forward to your shows, the bee puppets in the honey episode were hillarious!

Thanks for the info, I'll have to buy his DVD set and watch all the episodes I've missed. I can understand his reservations about injecting for a traditional roast turkey, since it's cooked in an oven over a couple hours. When frying though, I'll be carful to inject only under the skin. The immediate heat of hot oil will then sear the skin, locking in the precious juices. I like the idea of getting the spices getting well into the bird, and that's what I hope the injection will bring. Too often the surface or skin of chicken will have taken on flavorings but not the inside.

I suppose I should try both methods independently, together, and with a control turkey to be scientific about it. Otherwise it'll be difficult to differentiate the effects of the brine from that of the injection. I'll first try making a brine with bay leaves for spice and see how well that penetrates. I'm still curious what his thoughts are for a fried turkey, I think that method may warrant the injection approach.

Kind of reminds me of the time a guy tried to apply for a patent pertaining to a "unique patent verification process". If approved, the patent organizations would be in violation of said patent, requiring them to pay royalties to the patent owner.

Personally, I think it was just this guy's unique way of pissing off the patent office when his original patent application was rejected.

The EU likes to pretend that it's an oh so noble institution, whereas the US is run by mobsters. Well, most Europeans are fully aware that the EU and the European Parliament are staffed by some of the laziest, overly bureaucratic morons and crooks that this planet has ever seen.

Infact, the politicians behind the EU are somewhat like Nazis. They were NOT ELECTED BY THE PUBLIC, and have just taken power by blinding the governments of member states with nonsense about 'improved trade' and 'less economic barriers'.

Countries that are in the EU are forced to take on the laws as the EU dictates. Britain has a say in what laws it wants to take, but if the other states vote against it.. then 60,000,000 British citizens will be subject to a law that even their government opposes!

I wasn't specifically talking about MEPs, who are elected by the public. I'm talking about the thousands of higher level bureaucrats who run the whole EU game.

Either way, saying that the public votes for MEPs is only half right. The public knows NOTHING about MEPs, and AFAIR the turnout for the European Council Elections was lower than 30%!

Well, gee, let's hold an election on matters of biochemistry and see if the public will understand WTF it's all about without being briefed. The average voter knows nothing about MEPs, simply because they're told nothing about it.

My point remains. The EU is taking over Europe by stealth, whether that's a good thing or not.

The first question is who told him not to answer these questions?
The second question is why?
The third question is whom should we direct these valid questions to?
The fourth question is what excuse do the proper authorities have for not answering public questions?
The fifth question is which question was it that trigered all this mess?
The sixth question is what *are* they hiding?
The seventh question is whose interests really matter

The final question is how many newspapers, websites, etc. we
can get to comment on this way of refusing the public to
learn what is going on.

In todays litigious society, where you are sued or at least criticized for the smallest of slips, where journalists are scavenging for every single bit of news to check where somebody is contradicting himself, why so many people wonder why is that organizations of any kind require to organize the way they talk to the public at large?

Common people, those of you that are actually employed know quite well why this is necessary (I did not say desirable). Any one here complaining that has actually held a job knows that you can't go and talk about what your employer do without clearance. Deal with it properly and grow up.

Scrutiny does not have anything to do here: ask the same questions to the relevant person in the same organization and lets see what happens. If they refuse to answer then you may have a point about the organization attempting to elude scrutiny.

To those of you complaining without ever having had a job or the responsibility of working for a complex organization: get some life experience before pontificating. Or are you trolling?